So here’s a question, how should poachers (those who kill endangered species for a living or extra income) be treated when found by authorities? Should they be thrown in prison? Fined? Scourged then sentenced to forced labor? Let go? Or shot themselves? More and more, this question is being raised by nations where poaching occurs regularly.
The question surrounding protected species isn’t exactly esoteric, how can these animals be protected when they reside in areas often rife with poverty, war, and governmental instability? More and more often, the answer coming from such countries and green NGOs’s involves shooting poachers on sight. An official in Tanzania recently went as far as to say:
“Poachers must be harshly punished because they are merciless people who wantonly kill our wildlife and sometimes game wardens.”
When questioned about the human rights implications of such a policy, he replied:
“I am very aware that some alleged human rights activists will make an uproar, claiming that poachers have as much rights to be tried in courts as the next person, but let’s face it, poachers not only kill wildlife but also usually never hesitate to shoot dead any innocent person standing in their way.”
Besides simply killing the people willing to hunt endangered animals, such a policy could also act as a fear deterrent for other potential hunters. On the other hand such a policy could: enrage the local people and hunting groups who are often heavily armed (especially in African states), lead to greater poverty and starvation as an income source is cut off, and give an unregulated power to kill to men in locations where corruption is a consistent question.
So what do you think about this issue? Is the survival of endangered animals worth the killing of poachers, or are there other, viable options to reduce the amount of poaching? Moreover, would this policy even be beneficial to countries who enact it?
It’s a difficult question.
About the Author
